https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2161QQ

Promising results.

On 16 March 2020, advisor to the French Government on COVID-19, Professor Didier Raoult, announced that a non-randomized unblinded trial[34] involving 24 patients from the south east of France supported the claim that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment for COVID-19.[35] The trial is yet to be peer-reviewed.[34] An amount of 600 mg of hydroxychloroquine (brand name Plaquenil) was administered to these patients every day for 10 days. They reported "a significant decrease in viral load".[34] The drug appeared to be responsible for a "rapid and effective speeding up of their healing process, and a sharp decrease in the amount of time they remained contagious".[36] 70% of patients were "considered cured", compared with 12.5% of those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combination.[34] The antibiotic azithromycin - which is known to be effective against secondary infections from bacterial lung disease - led to even better outcomes. Professor Raoult said the results showed there was "a spectacular reduction in the number of positive cases" with the combination therapy. At 6 days, among patients given combination therapy, the percentage of cases still carrying SARS-CoV-2 was no more than 5%.[37][38]

Anyway, China and South Korea aren't experiencing new cases according to a paywalled NYT report.

According to them chloroquine is the answer.

Feck off, this thread's about Coronovirus, not Trump...

:mask:

Everyone calm down.

Go buy some Plaquenil from your local pharmacy and halt any progression of the disease.

Be sure to use one of those coupons, like GoodRX.com has...

Regards.

:halo:

Forwarded it before the thought police ruined it.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

It's dropping, not rising I think ...

I'm serious, can someone forward the above to knowledgeable doctors or epidemiologists?

Mother of God.

I hypothesized a while ago that DNP (dinitrophenol) could make cancer cells self-destruct through accelerated metabolic pathways and energy being expended by heat production within the mitochondria.

My assumption here is that if caught earlier in the prodromal phase of the disease, then one can hypothetically "flush out" the diseased cells.

Enhance the immune system through some natural flavenoids or other drugs, and it just may be possible to prevent the lethality of the virus.

If you felt safe and at peace the first time, there's good reason to think you will feel the same if you commit yourself again. Do such institutions do 'consultations' or something similar? I think it would be a good idea to at least speak to a professional to assess your situation. Whatever it is, don't let yourself hurt yourself, or anyone else. — StreetlightX

Yes, well... The scary thoughts have subsided, and I got reassurance from unenlightened that sometimes these thought have a sense of normalcy given the context.

I'm still healing, and think the process of healing won't subside anytime soon. So, for the moment, I'm monitoring myself with vigilance, and think that the best option is to take it easy given the hysteria and fear in the world.

Thanks for your concern; but, having to eat whenever I want to, or shower whenever, or sleep when I feel like it, or surf the internet, are things that I value at a higher rate than deprivation of them by commitment to a psychiatric unit.

So much for mathematics, if reality has no bearing on the truth of certain mathematical statements.

Watch Bernie fans flip out without concessions towards the VP being Sanders if Biden wins.

Second, your claim that the first player will "dominate" the game is, again, pure speculation. We don't know that! If you do, I suggest that you write your proof and send it to a reputable journal on Game Theory. — Nagase

I think the statistics of which side wins is sufficient proof. Just that you don't think statistics matters here, which I find puzzling.

I'd be ecstatic if someone could demonstrate the two hyper-rational players would prevent victory from happening for either side, unless a mistake were made for either players. This would apply to games with a finite amount of moves for either player, meaning that the game is deterministic...

@fdrake, is there any chance you could elucidate what I'm babbling about, and the statement made by @Nagase about statistics being irrelevant, whereas I think it is relevant to elucidating the fact that it is always better for a player to start out as white in chess...

I would like to reiterate my thoughts about the sentiments in the OP of this thread.

Namely, I still stand by the notion that for any deterministic game, humans or a CPU, will eventually solve the game. This happens for humans, in a similar manner, although in much larger time-frames than the CPU to elucidate the winning strategy for themselves.

The downside with this argument is that it is probably near impossible to find two human players at the same equilibrium point to entertain the notion that either side has a more rational player.

Therefore, it seems like we have to constrain the sentiment of two super-rational players that never make mistakes and are infallible with regard to the first move of the player or the response to the first move, et cetera.

With that said, I still believe that humans have the capacity to become super-rational, albeit not in the infallible manner of a CPU opponent. Although, in my opinion this thought is subject to scrutiny after realizing that white, statistically, is a winning player contrary to starting out as black, and that's quite profound in my opinion.

Why is that so? Quite an interesting subject...

Second, your claim that the first player will "dominate" the game is, again, pure speculation. — Nagase

https://www.chessgames.com/chessstats.html

Years covered: 1475 to 2020 (546 years)
All time controls (946,291 games)
White wins 357,549 games (37.78%)
Black wins 266,196 games (28.13%)
322,520 games are drawn (34.08%)

Yes, and all that hinges on whether the other player is;

1. Less informed.
2. Less rational.
3. Less motivated.

Once you have enough iterations and sufficiently motivated players, then whoever has the first move, will dominate the game if we strictly are talking about chess. I don't think the same applies for Hex, as you mentioned.

If you apply this same line of reasoning to such instances where both players have to be MORE, motivated, rational, and informed, then you have super-rational players.

Getting healthy, are we? — tim wood

Trying to.

It just is a philosophy of mind notion that might be elucidating if people thought of other people as behaviorist automata...

Statistically, white wins the majority of games against black. But, that's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make about given enough iterations that both players at best would be able to enjoy a stalemate.

The case with humans, comparatively to warfare is that if both players have an absolute deterrent, then the notion of a zero sum game becomes irrelevant. Furthermore, if one of the players makes a mistake, then that spells doom for us all...

Yes, so if that's the case that everyone wants to start out as white in chess, because there is a natural advantage to starting as white, then the game becomes meaningless for both players if an assured victory can always be entertained as white.

Notice that a perpetual stalemate is tantamount to the above.

I've been thinking a little about this line of reasoning, and the conclusion keeps on presented as a return to naturalism or instinct.

Has anyone else arrived at the same conclusion, why or why not?

I really don't understand what you're getting at. What exactly is your point? — Nagase

That through enough iterations in any deterministic game, then advantageous situations are known prior to making a decision on the decision tree, and hence, the chance of winning becomes very small.

I hope that made some sense.

Not of this magnitude!

You assume way too much. Arbitraging a trade ensures no market bubbles. But, go figure.

Whatever happened to arbitraging in the market?

Essentially any kind of irrational behavior that would lead towards a bubble or market failure.

And, since the market has fallen so drastically, and such a drop has never occurred in the past, then I suppose the point is that people are really irrational...

What exactly are you referring too? — Monitor

The stock market, perhaps?

Corona-virus doesn't scare me. It's the insane reaction towards it that worries me.

Yes, well we actually have a working model of game theory in practice in perhaps its most extreme form, being Mutually Assured Destruction.

Again the point about super-rational players is an inconvenient truth about the applicability of game theory manifest, yes?

Nobody likes super-rational players for the matter, as they can't be reasoned within, or from, dominant strategies.

Finally, you seem to claim in your last post that there is some kind of problem with applied game theory, but you don't indicate what the problem is or how it is remotely related to the fact that some games (like Hex) have a winning strategy for one of the players. So I'm kind of lost... — Nagase

Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm getting at. Namely, the nonsense of applying game theory to real world problems.

Let me elaborate with a real life example.

Let's take the case of Mutually Assured Destruction. If game theory leads us to assure a suicide pact between two opposing nations, then we ought to reject it, or not?

Yeah, as if the economy weren't relevant towards prosperity and personal leisure.

Anyway, I'm done, as this is getting funny.

I don't understand. What do you mean?

Good for you, then. Money never motivated me so go figure.

Yeah, and whoever buys into the idea is then what, again?